Recently, I was approached by a friend of my mother, who home-schools her two children and had started to teach them chemistry. She asked me if I
knew where she could get iodine. Apparently, the chemistry textbook she was teaching her children from required it for many of its experiments, and
she couldn't find it at any of the places that the book recommended purchasing it at. I knew, as I imagine you know, that elemental iodine has been
unavailable for purchase in the United States since 2007, due to its potential use for reducing pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. However, I had a
small quantity of it from before then, and fortunately I was able to help her.
I don't know if I was breaking the law or not, when I provided her with a small quantity of iodine crystals, so that she'd be able to teach her
children chemistry. From my understanding of the law, I was not, since I didn't charge her any money for it, and the 2007 law appears to only control
sales. But as I was searching for a definitive answer as to the legality of my actions, I realized, this shouldn't be something I need to wonder
about. Moms who want to teach their kids chemistry at home shouldn't have to worry that they're breaking the law, or seek out a substitute to perhaps
the most unique element on the periodic table. Iodine's role in chemistry education is a long and storied one, and unlike most other staples of
professional chemistry labs, iodine is not particularly toxic or dangerous or expensive. And it's so widely used for performing tests of unknown
chemicals, that if you ask a chemist how to perform an "iodine test", he'll inevitably ask you "which one?"
After researching this further, I'm even more confused as to the purpose of the 2007 law. Potassium iodide can still be purchased and sold without
restriction, and obtaining crude elemental iodine from potassium iodide is trivial. Crude elemental iodine would be more than adequate for your
typical meth lab, but that couldn't be said for most of iodine's other applications. Even in the event that someone did have iodine, they'd still
need both pseudoephedrine and elemental phosphorus for that reaction, and both are already controlled. I wonder what they'll think to control if this
ban fails to work? Coffee filters? Distilled water?
Well, it turns out that I don't have to wonder. Iodine was placed on the DEA's list of controlled precursors, as a chemical that is supposedly
necessary for the synthesis of a drug. (List I) This, despite the fact that there are at least twenty other documented ways to synthesize it that
don't use iodine at all. Most US meth labs seem to have switched to a very... atom-inefficient... variant of the Birch reduction method anyway,
called "shake and bake", that doesn't require iodine. And even these meth labs have largely been made irrelevant by "superlabs" controlled by Mexican
drug cartels.
It seems preposterous that the heaviest nonmetal on the periodic table of elements has been banned from sale in the US because it's the third-most
important "ingredient" on a "recipe" for crystal meth that was made irrelevant nearly a decade ago, but that seems to be the case. I know that it's
not particularly difficult to circumvent these bans, and that legitimate chemists are largely exempted from it, but that only serves the purpose of
shielding the most effective critics of the law from its effects. The people that lose the most as a result of this law are often those too young to
vote. I remember being confused as a kid, wondering why some solvents were called "polar" and some solvents "nonpolar" when there were so many
different solvents used for so many different things. Then I remember it making so much more sense when I could dissolve iodine in these solvents,
and immediately see roughly how polar any solvent was, on a scale of "yellow" to "purple". I remember being fascinated by the iodine clock
demonstration, and stumping my teacher when I asked why iodine turned starch black, but left sugar alone -- something I had discovered on my own,
rather than in a classroom. In high school, I received a lesson on the potential dangers of chemistry, when I accidentally let a vial of nitrogen
triiodide dry out, then tried to wet it with ammonia to make it insensitive again. Having ammonia and iodine forcefully blown into my face was
certainly not a pleasant experience, but I can think of plenty of chemicals that would have resulted in much worse.The
stains that covered the room made it impossible for me to deny what had happened, and my parents confiscated the rest of my iodine after that, doling
out small portions only when they knew what I intended to use it for.
Chemistry is, in most ways, the quintessential science. When people imagine scientists, there's a reason why they think of labcoats and beakers.
This direct connection between abstract theory and observation makes it ideally-suited for teaching the principles of the scientific method to
students, especially ones that don't yet have a background in statistics or calculus. It's depressing to think that future generations might not be
allowed to experiment with the element that quickly became my favorite due to its versatility. Of course, its versatility has made it useful to more
than just students, but a complete nationwide ban on the sale of this element is absurd, especially now.
I don't think that the police unions who wanted iodine regulated had bad motives, but I'm concerned that they might not be seeing the unintended
consequences of the laws that they lobbied for. I think it's totally reasonable that, say, phenylacetone be strictly controlled, or even that
pseudoephedrine require a prescription from a doctor. But for the sake of chemistry education, if nothing else, we need to rethink whether there's any
good reason to have iodine this restricted. I plan to write to the appropriate officials in the DEA and congress as well, but obviously this sort of
appeal would carry a lot more weight if it were proposed by the ACS, rather than just a citizen who happens to be fascinated by chemistry. As one of
the few Americans who could reverse this misguided regulation by just asking nicely, I implore you to consider it, for the sake of the chemistry
education of future generations.
Thank you. |
